After 30 minutes of brain boiling work, I finally finished crafting the most beautiful lambda statement in Java. What could have simply been done in two nested for loops, I decided to tackle the problem with the infamous lambda statement– feared by most programmers. Lambda statements by no stretch makes code any easier to read since the same tasks can be accomplished through using simpler and more recognizable syntax. Yet I decided to utilize this excessive lambda statement. After much contemplation, I realized that I was only using lambda statements due to the fact that people inside of a field typically try to write to impress their peers. This code chunk is clearly a sophisticated use of functional programming and will likely impress people inside the computer science community; however, 95% of my computer science class would not understand a single word of this statement. This poses a dilemma to newer programmers which may have difficulty reading this “sophisticated code”. After years of helping students learn to program in my high school, I know that students struggle with making their own code legible. Their code often lacks sophistication and clarity. However, at the same time many of my college professors which are embedded in the field of computer science often write code that is too sophisticated and obscure for anybody to easily understand. This got me thinking, how can we teach students to programming in a way that yields legible code for everybody in the computer science field? I turned towards English. It turns out that programming can take a few pointers from English to improve its clarity. The same skills used to teach writing can be applied when teaching students to program because excellent code and writing contains thought through structure, clear phrasing and readability.

The role that composition has in programming is disputed. There are people that gravitate towards programming in college because it is math and science intensive. Traditionally, programming has been viewed solely as a science. Some people may argue that composition does not play an influential role in programming. Computers are rocks that we tricked into manipulating data for us. However, language is inescapable and finds a way to seep into every facet of our lives. Once we recognize the similarities that programming and English composition have, we can move towards writing more comprehensible code. If you ignore the parallels between writing and coding, you are disconnected from relationships that can further enhance your code. Tom Lynch concluded in his article “Letters to the Machine: Why Computer Programming Belongs in the English Classroom”, “If English class is where our children already learn how to critically engage with language, adding computational languages is a natural complement”(96). The same skills that we have been developing for hundreds of years to teach English can also be applied when teaching programming.

Structure is the first thing that can make or break a writing assignment or an extensive programming project. There is nothing more cringe inducing than sitting down to read an essay only to quickly realize that is just all heaped into one massive body paragraph. The same is true with programming, students try to jam all their code into a single method like an overpacked suitcase. Typically teachers try to prevent the slaughter of an essay by giving students a graphical organizer to fill out before the pens strike paper. The most notable essay organizers represent the introduction as an upside-down triangle and body paragraphs as rectangles. The triangles helps the students visualize the specificity of details and the partitioning forces the separation of ideas into paragraphs. It turns out that this technique also yields success in teaching students structure in computer science. In Vincent’s master thesis he noted “Results indicated that when students went on to their second level programming course, the students who were provided templates wrote better code. The code they wrote was more modular, used more effective parameter passing, and was better documented”(63). Computer science students are provided with “skeleton code” where the classes and method headers are provided, but, the students have to implement the methods. This teaches students to make both methods and classes homogeneous. In other words, functions should perform one task and should be under 30 lines long. Functions are a lot like sentences in English where they should convey a single message. Classes comprise both variables and functions and should only express one idea – a lot like a paragraph. You might be wondering why students struggle with structure in writing when they are provided ample templates by their teachers. In his essay “Pay Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain: The Importance of Identity in Academic Writing” Williams states that “Many students are taught that using the five-paragraph essay form with any semblance of identity removed is the core of academic writing and will allow them to march triumphantly through the writing assignments of one class after another”(Williams 711). The truth is, writing and programming does not always follow strict structural guidelines. Just like always writing five paragraph essays is not always the optimal solution for essays, templates also fail in programming. As much as we love to provide students with nifty templates to follow, there will come a day when students have to think outside of the box and formulate their own structure. Programming students need more exercise where they learn to structure their code into methods and classes. A good example of such an exercise would have students separate a cluttered chunk of code into methods and classes. I am not suggesting that teachers should not use templates to teach structure to students; however, I believe that the templates used should not be stressed as the only or best solution.

Both concise composition and programming uses clear diction. It is frustrating when you read an essay and it does not register because the concepts were inefficiently conveyed. This is a major issue in both writing and programming. There are simple forms of misleading phrasing that distracts the user from the intended message. The simple use of obscure verbs or rambling may distract the reader from the intended topic. Code and literature are competing for your finite attention when conveying a message. If you have to read a programming project multiple times before understanding it, its phrasing is probably poor. An effective way that both English major and Computer Science majors can try to improve phrasing is through peer reviews. In peer reviews it becomes obvious which parts of your projects are hard to understand. In his paper “Letters to the Machine: Why Computer Programming Belongs in the English Classroom” Lynch noticed that as students become more comfortable with the computer dialect, they imagined how their audience would respond to what they wrote”(96). Programs, although ran on the computer are meant to be read and analyzed by other people. People can make their programs more readable through documentation, clear variable, and helper methods. Most inexperienced programmers use terrible variable names which have no relationship to what they are storing. Take the following example:

String s1;
String s2;
String s3;

String firstName;
String middleName;
String lastName;

Someone skimming over the code on the top you would have no clue what the strings stored and would have to tear apart the program to figure out. The example on the bottom is crystal clear on what the variables are meant to store. Like programming students, inexperienced writers tend to struggle with using sources to support their arguments in their essays. Just like programmers lack documentation which informs the reader about what the program is doing, inexperienced writers have a hard time using sources in their essay to support their claims. In article “I Just Turned In What I Thought” Anne Elrod Whitney examined a particular student as he struggled to find a balance between personal ideas and sources when writing an essay(188). Although programmers and writers may know what they are talking about, they also need to communicate those ideas with the reader through ample sources and documentation.

Would you believe me if I told you that the segment of code above this sentence when ran in a Brainfuck compiler prints “Hello World”?

print("Hello World")

This programming segment also prints “Hello World”, but in Python. There is a large variation in programming languages. However, most high level programming languages like Python and Java are much more readable than Brainfuck. A buzz word in the computer science field is “abstraction”. Abstraction is the process of simplifying complicated processes into something more understandable. The example in the top of the paragraph deals with manipulating memory registers to become the ascii values of “Hello World”. The problem with Brainfuck is that whenever you program for it, you have to translate every concept into a byte array. Computer scientists solve this problem by making higher level programming languages like Python and Java which takes care of mundane tasks under the hood. Vincent in his master thesis noticed that “Given the similarities between spoken languages and object-oriented programming languages that have emerged, there is much encouragement that there may be possibilities for a new instructional paradigm”(5). Higher level programming languages are starting to share a shocking number of similarities with English. With these new levels of abstraction, programmers are able to focus less on syntax and more on structured, problem solving and documentation which enables larger teams of programmers to work together with clarity.

When you start treating code as an extension of the English language rather than a scientific construct, you start to write more understandable code. A few days ago a friend of mine asked me for help on a large programming project the night it was due. My brain groaned as I scanned his project, the bulk of the code was jammed into an ugly 300-line undocumented method. The variable names were obscure and there were so many nested statements that the code started to tail off the screen. I was unable to decipher what was happening in his program. All I could do for him was suggest how he could clean up his code and restructure his project so that he can understand what is happening where. It is hard to solve a bug when even the author has difficulties deciphering what is happening in the code. Programming is another form of communication that needs to be treated similarly to composition. The computer does not care what you write; however, it is critical that your audience is able to understand what you are saying with clarity and precision.